Case Law Details
Section 271AAA imposes an additional condition of the assessee having to substantiate the manner in which, the undisclosed income was derived. This requirement, however, must be seen as consequential to or corollary to the base requirement of specifying the manner, in which, the undisclosed income was derived. It is only when such declaration is made, the question of substantiating such disclosure or claim would arise.
If, as in the present case, the Revenue failed to question the assessee while recording his statement under section 132 (4) of the Act as regards the manner of deriving such income, the Revenue cannot jump to the consequential or later requirement of substantiating the manner of deriving the income. In the context of the requirement of the assessee specifying the manner of deriving the income the decision of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mahendra C Shah 299 ITR 305 would hold the field even in the context of sub-section (2) of section 271AAA of the Act. It is only when the officer of the raiding party recording the statement of the assessee under section 132(4) of the Act elicits a response from the assesse’s this requirement, the assessee’s responsibility to substantiate the manner of deriving such income would commence. When the base requirement itself fails, the question of denying the benefit of no penalty would not arise.
Full Text of the High Court Judgment / Order is as follows:-
Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 21-11-2016 raising following question for our consideration:–
“Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs. 30,54,750 under section 271 AAA of the Act levied by the assessing officer?”
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
i have a question,
when any seller deduted tds on pushase item,in that case tcs on purchase is appicable or not